Posted on 10/12/2007 2:59:51 AM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves "Christian" because of the baggage that accompanies the label.
more at link...
(Excerpt) Read more at mini.mobileplay.com ...
“Talent = gift, faculty, ability, flair, capacity, aptitude. Why is this so hard to understand?”
What’s hard to understand is that you equate the word with intelligence and wisdom, even though you apparently have access to a dictionary.
“WHAT? How can you say that? You’ve had several goes at me for attacking your character rather than the arguments”
1. I have remarked on it. That is not the same as condemning you.
2. Your use of “so swift” means “too swift.” In the common parlance, that is to say hasty, thoughtless, without justification. This is not the case. I have seen these ploys countless times before, and my remarks were completely justified.
“So why do you do it then? And yes you have.”
No, actually, I haven’t, and never do. You cannot cite a single instance of my attacking your character *instead of* addressing your argument.
“I was saying, clearly, that you are swift in pointing out that behaviour in others, I was NOT condemning you for indulging in that behaviour.”
No, you don’t get away with that one. Your use of “so swift” clearly means, as I remarked above, too swift: hasty, thoughtless, without justification.
“Guess we are back to “youth regarding christians as judgemental” again.”
The foolish often react that way when confronted with the truth.
“Actually I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was trying to graciously concede the point.”
Well, then, I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
“this last is sarcasm, but less than”
That’s not sarcasm. I’m dead serious. It’s such a common thing, and requires so much bandwidth to explain, that a commonly understood name for it would be a blessing. I think “the Doyle Phenomenon” would do nicely.
“And this argument, apparently, is not “playing the man rather than the ball”
Um, no. Are you feeling all right? It describes a specific behavior, and in no way implies that any given position is invalidated by that behavior.
“implying to me stupidity, mediocrity, close-mindedness etc etc. What a joke.”
You should read more carefully. If I accuse you of anything, it is that *you* impute stupidity, close-mindedness etc etc. to your opponents.
And that is a comment *in addition to* addressing your arguments, not *instead of* addressing them.
“What’s hard to understand is that you equate the word with intelligence and wisdom,”
Its called a synonym. I wasnt referring solely to wisdom, intelligence, but also aptitude, experience, facility etc.
“...even though you apparently have access to a dictionary.”
Now that is what I call playing the man rather than the ball. Why do you feel the need to add these little sneers?
“1. I have remarked on it. That is not the same as condemning you.”
Oh come on. You are far too intelligent to believe that.
“2. Your use of “so swift” means “too swift.” In the common parlance, that is to say hasty, thoughtless, without justification. This is not the case. I have seen these ploys countless times before, and my remarks were completely justified.”
But you havent experienced me and the way I argue, what I believe, or how I express myself. Think of all the trouble we have had over the word “talent”. What you are doing here is attributing behaviour, beliefs and/or attitudes to someone on the basis of what someone else has said or done in the past, and that’s not really fair.
Now OK, I understand one should learn from experience. If every environmentalist you ever meet is some kind of green propoganda spewing headcase then you would be stupid not to expect the next one to be so too, but real people are more complex than all these labels we too commonly apply. I despise pigeonholing people into nice, neat little categories.
“No, actually, I haven’t, and never do. You cannot cite a single instance of my attacking your character *instead of* addressing your argument.”
I thought I pointed out two, in fact.
“No, you don’t get away with that one. Your use of “so swift” clearly means, as I remarked above, too swift: hasty, thoughtless, without justification.”
Don’t I? The response to some of my statements has been circular arguments and sneering condemnations of my questions. My use was not too swift. I have seen these ploys countless times before, and my remarks were completely justified. :)
“You should read more carefully. If I accuse you of anything, it is that *you* impute stupidity, close-mindedness etc etc. to your opponents.”
And your response is to impute leftism, invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...
“And that is a comment *in addition to* addressing your arguments, not *instead of* addressing them.”
Very well then. Let us address these arguments, and be more careful in our way of expressing them.
If freedom of religious belief is to mean anything, then surely it must be universal. I mean, if you believe Islam, Atheism, and Wicca are death cults and not true religion, then you probably also believe they should be proscribed. How then does that make you different morally from an Islamic state that regards Christianity, Atheism and Wicca as death cults that should be proscribed? (I know they are different, we forgive and pray for our enemies rather than stone them, blind them or blow them up)
They’re calling Christians judgmental? That’s pretty judgmental lol
“Its called a synonym.”
No, it isn’t. Talent is a synonym of neither intelligence nor wisdom. They are vastly different. I can’t believe you are still trying to justify your use of the word “talent.”
“Now that is what I call playing the man rather than the ball.”
No, that is a throwaway line inserted *in addition to* arguments addressing the point.
“Why do you feel the need to add these little sneers?”
Because I have a sense of humor? Because I become impatient the third or fourth time I have to rebut the same argument without it being acknowledged? Because I have a touch of malice in my heart? Because I lack charity?
“Oh come on. You are far too intelligent to believe that.”
Intelligence aside, I know what my intent is. In an astounding triumph of optimism over experience, whenever I tell someone “You’re doing thus and so,” I always hope the other fellow will say, “Hey, you’re right. I am doing that.”
“But you havent experienced me and the way I argue, what I believe, or how I express myself.”
It is an article of faith in the West today that we are all “unique” and you can’t read people. It ain’t so.
“Think of all the trouble we have had over the word “talent”.
I haven’t had any. I have spoken of intelligence and wisdom, and you have used the word “talent” as though it meant the same thing. And, of course, you’ve wasted a good deal of time trying to pretend that you didn’t miss the point.
“What you are doing here is attributing behaviour, beliefs and/or attitudes to someone on the basis of what someone else has said or done in the past”
Not at all. I’ve been dealing with what you’ve said.
“real people are more complex than all these labels we too commonly apply.”
Not in any way that matters. Real people are distressingly similar and consistent. Tell me somebody’s position on one issue, and I’ll give you the rest of his positions with about 80% accuracy. Tell me his position on two issues, and I’ll get all of them, in most cases.
“I despise pigeonholing people into nice, neat little categories.”
That’s another argument that Satan introduced into the human cognosphere for the sake of messing us up.
“I thought I pointed out two, in fact.”
No. You attributed to me some things I didn’t say, but you didn’t “point out” any such thing. You can try again, if you like.
“The response to some of my statements has been circular arguments”
That is just simply false. I have made none. You have tried to put words in my mouth that might amount to that, but all that is solely your own creation.
“and sneering condemnations of my questions.”
Considering the blizzard of insult and false accusations you’ve thrown up, I think I’ve been a paragon of patience. That said, some questions deserve sneering condemnation. Some of your questions were not questions at all, but rather malicious slurs thinly disguised as questions.
“I have seen these ploys countless times before, and my remarks were completely justified. :)”
No, you haven’t, because I advanced no ploys, and there was therefore nothing to justify your comments. You see, it’s critical that it was true when I said it and not when you said it. That’s really the central point. Of course, you can say anything you like if you don’t care if it’s true or not, but that’s just playing into Satan’s hands.
“And your response is to impute leftism, invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...”
Please, use your reason. One doesn’t *impute* invalid arguments and despicable tactics as one imputes stupidity or close-mindedness. The latter are characteristics or character traits, while the former are behaviors. There is a difference in quality between “you are X” and “you are doing Y.” The one is a judgment of the intellectual and moral qualities and standing of the person concerned, while the other is a description of observed behaviors. Your attempt to equate my comments regarding “invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...” with your habitual assumption of moral turpitude on the part of your opponents is just a false moral equivalence.
In other words, your habitual practice of imputing stupidity, close-mindedness, and other negative qualities to people solely because their opinions differ from yours is morally wrong, while my observations regarding “invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...” are at worst morally neutral. If I actually succeeded in getting through to you so that you understood the arguments I am making, they would graduate to laudable.
“If freedom of religious belief is to mean anything, then surely it must be universal.”
On the contrary, it would be lunatic nonsense to accord—well, lunatic nonsense—the dignity of a valid religion. Only God gets to establish religions.
“I mean, if you believe Islam, Atheism, and Wicca are death cults and not true religion, then you probably also believe they should be proscribed. How then does that make you different morally from an Islamic state that regards Christianity, Atheism and Wicca as death cults that should be proscribed?”
There is a criminal who kills policemen because he hates them. A policeman believes he should be executed for his many cold-blooded murders of policemen. Both the criminal and the policeman believe that the other should be killed. How are they morally different?
Truth is not the main thing; it is the only thing. Islam is a death cult and not true religion, while atheism and wicca are risible error. Christianity is true. There is, therefore, no need to waste even a nanosecond caring about what a mooselimb might say about Christianity.
By the way, you really need to pay more attention to what people say…I said that mooselimbs should be expelled from the US, and atheism and wicca mocked. I didn’t say that atheism and wicca should be proscribed.
It’s things like that which lead me to speculate that you haven’t been hanging around with conservatives very long. Every time you come up with one of these “you probably believe” things, it’s some vicious stereotype that leftists have of conservatives. Here, you engage in the old, “Being a closed-minded bigot of a conservative, you probably believe…” trope, even after I have set out a contrary position. Conservatives don’t act like that, or find that sort of behavior congenial. Leftist sites do, I know, but conservatives regard it as infra dig.
“I can’t believe you are still trying to justify your use of the word “talent.””
Actually I am.
“No, that is a throwaway line inserted *in addition to* arguments addressing the point.”
OK, it is playing the man AND the ball.
“Because I become impatient the third or fourth time I have to rebut the same argument without it being acknowledged?”
No you dont get away with that one. You were firing them off in your second reply.
“In an astounding triumph of optimism over experience, whenever I tell someone “You’re doing thus and so,” I always hope the other fellow will say, “Hey, you’re right. I am doing that.”
I agree it isn’t easy to humbly admit you are wrong.
““What you are doing here is attributing behaviour, beliefs and/or attitudes to someone on the basis of what someone else has said or done in the past”
Not at all. I’ve been dealing with what you’ve said.”
OK.
“Not in any way that matters. Real people are distressingly similar and consistent.”
I agree people are more similar than they are different, but at the same time real people surprise me all the time.
“Tell me somebody’s position on one issue, and I’ll give you the rest of his positions with about 80% accuracy. Tell me his position on two issues, and I’ll get all of them, in most cases.”
Wow...thats impressive! Lets try it out...name two issues for me.
“That’s another argument that Satan introduced into the human cognosphere for the sake of messing us up.”
Please explain.
“No. You attributed to me some things I didn’t say, but you didn’t “point out” any such thing. You can try again, if you like.”
Yes, they were direct quotes.
“That is just simply false. I have made none. You have tried to put words in my mouth that might amount to that, but all that is solely your own creation.”
I’m sorry but Im afraid that it is absolutely true.
“Considering the blizzard of insult and false accusations you’ve thrown up, I think I’ve been a paragon of patience. That said, some questions deserve sneering condemnation. Some of your questions were not questions at all, but rather malicious slurs thinly disguised as questions.”
I feel I could say absolutely the same myself.
“No, you haven’t, because I advanced no ploys, and there was therefore nothing to justify your comments. You see, it’s critical that it was true when I said it and not when you said it.”
I see. Well, I was unaware that I was advancing a ploy either. As you do, I try and call people when they resort to insult or allegation instead of actually giving a reply. I’m sorry if I did.
“Of course, you can say anything you like if you don’t care if it’s true or not, but that’s just playing into Satan’s hands.”
Now you see this is where I hit problems. Obviously everyone cares whether they are telling the truth - even people who aren’t dont like to admit, even to themselves, that they aren’t. Similarly, no one wants to think they are “playing into Satan’s hands.” Why therefore do you feel the need to add this sentence to your argument? I can only think it is because it serves to add authority to your statement, because the obvious implication is that someone who doesn’t agree with your argument is therefore “playing into Satan’s hands”.
“Please, use your reason. One doesn’t *impute* invalid arguments and despicable tactics as one imputes stupidity or close-mindedness. The latter are characteristics or character traits, while the former are behaviors. There is a difference in quality between “you are X” and “you are doing Y.””
Of course you are right, but the actual effect of either accusation is the same.
“The one is a judgment of the intellectual and moral qualities and standing of the person concerned, while the other is a description of observed behaviors.”
True, although I would argue (as indeed you have) that the one is often a reflection of the other.
“Your attempt to equate my comments regarding “invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...” with your habitual assumption of moral turpitude on the part of your opponents is just a false moral equivalence.”
I’m not trying to make a moral equivalence on that level and I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was. I’m more concerned with the actual effect of either type of comment, which is to generate more heat than light.
“In other words, your habitual practice of imputing stupidity, close-mindedness, and other negative qualities to people solely because their opinions differ from yours is morally wrong, while my observations regarding “invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...” are at worst morally neutral. If I actually succeeded in getting through to you so that you understood the arguments I am making, they would graduate to laudable.”
I understand your arguments. I am devestated that you think I “habitually impute negative qualities”. I dont think I imputed stupidity though.
“On the contrary, it would be lunatic nonsense to accord—well, lunatic nonsense—the dignity of a valid religion. Only God gets to establish religions.”
That would mean you would need a definitive definition of what constitutes “religion”.
“Truth is not the main thing; it is the only thing. Islam is a death cult and not true religion, while atheism and wicca are risible error. Christianity is true. There is, therefore, no need to waste even a nanosecond caring about what a mooselimb might say about Christianity.”
I concur, but thats not an argument thats going to work for someone who is not a Christian.
“By the way, you really need to pay more attention to what people say…I said that mooselimbs should be expelled from the US, and atheism and wicca mocked. I didn’t say that atheism and wicca should be proscribed.”
Oh, I wasn’t saying you were. I was speaking generally. The “you” in my statements was not “you” personally. Sorry for any confusion.
“Here, you engage in the old, “Being a closed-minded bigot of a conservative, you probably believe…” “
I don’t think I was, which leads me back to speculating that you have heard this kind of thing so many times, that you automatically assume any “nay-saying” as meaning I am doing the same. Actually I wasnt. Its a logical inference “IF you believe Islam, Atheism, and Wicca are death cults and not true religion, THEN you probably also believe they should be proscribed.” That seems like a logical conclusion to me. I mean, there are variations, one person might think Wiccans should only be laughed at, while another thinks Atheists should be flayed alive, but the logical inference is that someone who believes Islam, wicca et al are tools of evil is likely also to believe there should be restraints placed upon them by the body politic.
Calvinists tend to be more authoritarian.
But they do discuss religion... I remind them all the time...
Just two examples:
People ask me what I am doing for Halloween and I tell them I do not practice Satanism.
People ask me about astrology and I tell them it is a silly superstition from the old Chaldean pagan religion.
Usually those who tell you it is not polite to discuss politics or religion are the ones who bring those topics up.
I let them have it with both barrels...
The origins of drama come from the esoteric ideals directly related to religion. Religious ritual is psychodrama designed to conjure up images in the mind of the viewers and/or participants. This is illustrated no better than by the Greek traditions of using masks in their plays.
The actor can hide himself behind the illusion of a character’s mask, the audience can focus not on the actor, but on the image of the character represented - - one form of idolatry, among others in pagan Greek polytheism.
The Greeks were idolaters and were pagans. The images in their drama were a representation of something. What did Oedipus represent?
To the pagan Egyptians, the pharaohs were gods. Gods had their own special privileges of divinity. The pagan Egyptians had their own pantheon of gods like the pagan Greeks, several of which the Greeks adopted. (Set and Typhon are convenient examples.)
The pagan Egyptians were also idolaters like the Greeks; their temples, architecture and art are replete with sacred idols. They both practiced human sacrifice. (These practices extended to the pagan Romans as well.) Is Oedipus representative of the pharaoh Akhnaton?
One of Sigmund Freud’s earlier followers, Karl Abraham, contributed an essay to the first volume of Imago, published by Freud in 1912, entitled Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton). This was of interest in that the essay talks about how Akhnaton did not entomb his mother Tiy next to her husband after her death and that Akhnaton’s rivalry with his father for possession of his mother extended beyond death.
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky has many critics, but his assertions are most profound in his book Oedipus and Akhnaton. There appears to be a particular level of viciousness directed toward Velikovsky from many Egyptologists. Like Akhnaton, Velikovsky is reviled for tearing down some idolatries of previously accepted thinking. Examinations of reaction concerning his other books (Peoples of the Sea and Ages in Chaos) are ample evidence of this in such historical and literary circles of research. I attribute much of this to the ancient conflict between the pagan and the Judaic that still rages (even from within Judaism itself, see the Steven Plaut article: The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism) although the pagan civilizations of Greece and Egypt are long since dead. This conflict was represented by Othello, Death of a Salesman, and many other places in art, literature and science. Here with Oedipus, it is also represented in the modern arguments over historical chronology, pagan idolatry of the Greeks and Egyptians, along with modern idolatries commonly found in both domestic and international politics.
The Sun and Bacchus are Apollo and Dionysus, two gods, or two aspects of religious experience from the ancient Greeks, and their juxtaposition is of some importance - - a statement of belief in the duality of human nature, symbolized by Apollo as the light of reason, and Dionysus as the underground power of emotion (see Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae).
Egyptians worshipped Harpocrates, the god of silence; for which reason he is always pictured holding a finger on his mouth. Athenians had a statue of brass, which they bowed to; a figure made without a tongue, to declare secrecy thereby. The Romans had a goddess of silence called Angerona, which was pictured like Harpocrates, holding her finger on her mouth, in token of secrecy.
There is an occult nature to certain politics and this progression of culture (ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and the modern iconographic idolatry of Marxist paganism) can easily be illustrated, but is most often ignored or rejected for reasons of political expediency, like the aforementioned pagan idolatries of secrecy and silence. The use of such religion is essential for many aspects of political power over the ignorant, unwashed masses. It is no surprise that Akhnaton's monotheistic approach was completely and abruptly destroyed by the successive generation, restoring the pantheistic idolatries of previous pharaohs. This phenomenon is not historically isolated and is played out in a myriad of instances today.
Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology are great illustrations. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)
Morality and all of its associated ideals are are rooted entirely in the belief some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Plato’s Apology is a drama that portrays the current Left wing frustration with talk radio in America. The people of Athens (the Left) are demanding that Socrates (Rush) be silent. Socrates refuses and the elite of Athens demand the execution of Socrates. The modern Left wants a figurative execution of Rush Limbaugh and others like him (although ‘figurative’ would quickly become tangible, if the Left ever had the unchecked power they desire, just as it was with Socrates). In terms of this ‘figurative execution’, the cancellation of the Michael Savage and Dr. Laura Schlessinger television shows are perfect examples!
Try an experiment:
The next time you are confronted by a neo-pagan, New Age animal rights eco-fascist who claims humans were not "designed" or "meant" to eat animal flesh, ask them about the origin of their creationist philosophy. Inherent in such a claim is the idea that there is a "designer" or some divinity of "meaning" in human existence. Would they apply this to abortion, embryonic stem cells, or homosexuality? No?
We all have the power to judge...
All are denied the power to condemn.
All have the power to judge.
None are given the power to condemn.
They are pushing their religion... I remind them all the time...
Just two examples:
People ask me what I am doing for Halloween and I tell them I do not practice Satanism.
People ask me about astrology and I tell them it is a silly superstition from the old Chaldean pagan religion.
Usually those who tell you it is not polite to discuss politics or religion are the ones who bring those topics up.
I let them have it with both barrels...
The origins of drama come from the esoteric ideals directly related to religion. Religious ritual is psychodrama designed to conjure up images in the mind of the viewers and/or participants. This is illustrated no better than by the Greek traditions of using masks in their plays.
The actor can hide himself behind the illusion of a character’s mask, the audience can focus not on the actor, but on the image of the character represented - - one form of idolatry, among others in pagan Greek polytheism.
The Greeks were idolaters and were pagans. The images in their drama were a representation of something. What did Oedipus represent?
To the pagan Egyptians, the pharaohs were gods. Gods had their own special privileges of divinity. The pagan Egyptians had their own pantheon of gods like the pagan Greeks, several of which the Greeks adopted. (Set and Typhon are convenient examples.)
The pagan Egyptians were also idolaters like the Greeks; their temples, architecture and art are replete with sacred idols. They both practiced human sacrifice. (These practices extended to the pagan Romans as well.) Is Oedipus representative of the pharaoh Akhnaton?
One of Sigmund Freud’s earlier followers, Karl Abraham, contributed an essay to the first volume of Imago, published by Freud in 1912, entitled Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton). This was of interest in that the essay talks about how Akhnaton did not entomb his mother Tiy next to her husband after her death and that Akhnaton’s rivalry with his father for possession of his mother extended beyond death.
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky has many critics, but his assertions are most profound in his book Oedipus and Akhnaton. There appears to be a particular level of viciousness directed toward Velikovsky from many Egyptologists. Like Akhnaton, Velikovsky is reviled for tearing down some idolatries of previously accepted thinking. Examinations of reaction concerning his other books (Peoples of the Sea and Ages in Chaos) are ample evidence of this in such historical and literary circles of research. I attribute much of this to the ancient conflict between the pagan and the Judaic that still rages (even from within Judaism itself, see the Steven Plaut article: The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism) although the pagan civilizations of Greece and Egypt are long since dead. This conflict was represented by Othello, Death of a Salesman, and many other places in art, literature and science. Here with Oedipus, it is also represented in the modern arguments over historical chronology, pagan idolatry of the Greeks and Egyptians, along with modern idolatries commonly found in both domestic and international politics.
The Sun and Bacchus are Apollo and Dionysus, two gods, or two aspects of religious experience from the ancient Greeks, and their juxtaposition is of some importance - - a statement of belief in the duality of human nature, symbolized by Apollo as the light of reason, and Dionysus as the underground power of emotion (see Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae).
Egyptians worshipped Harpocrates, the god of silence; for which reason he is always pictured holding a finger on his mouth. Athenians had a statue of brass, which they bowed to; a figure made without a tongue, to declare secrecy thereby. The Romans had a goddess of silence called Angerona, which was pictured like Harpocrates, holding her finger on her mouth, in token of secrecy.
There is an occult nature to certain politics and this progression of culture (ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and the modern iconographic idolatry of Marxist paganism) can easily be illustrated, but is most often ignored or rejected for reasons of political expediency, like the aforementioned pagan idolatries of secrecy and silence. The use of such religion is essential for many aspects of political power over the ignorant, unwashed masses. It is no surprise that Akhnaton's monotheistic approach was completely and abruptly destroyed by the successive generation, restoring the pantheistic idolatries of previous pharaohs. This phenomenon is not historically isolated and is played out in a myriad of instances today.
Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology are great illustrations. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)
Morality and all of its associated ideals are are rooted entirely in the belief some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Plato’s Apology is a drama that portrays the current Left wing frustration with talk radio in America. The people of Athens (the Left) are demanding that Socrates (Rush) be silent. Socrates refuses and the elite of Athens demand the execution of Socrates. The modern Left wants a figurative execution of Rush Limbaugh and others like him (although ‘figurative’ would quickly become tangible, if the Left ever had the unchecked power they desire, just as it was with Socrates). In terms of this ‘figurative execution’, the cancellation of the Michael Savage and Dr. Laura Schlessinger television shows are perfect examples!
Try an experiment:
The next time you are confronted by a neo-pagan, New Age animal rights eco-fascist who claims humans were not "designed" or "meant" to eat animal flesh, ask them about the origin of their creationist philosophy. Inherent in such a claim is the idea that there is a "designer" or some divinity of "meaning" in human existence. Would they apply this to abortion, embryonic stem cells, or homosexuality? No?
Exactly, thank you!
Exactly.
The deletions directed by the White House included details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC’s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels, according to one official who has seen the original version.
“No you dont get away with that one. You were firing them off in your second reply.”
Hey, I put a question mark after each one so you could pick and choose.
“I agree it isn’t easy to humbly admit you are wrong.”
It gets easier with experience.
“I agree people are more similar than they are different, but at the same time real people surprise me all the time.”
Do they?
“Wow...thats impressive!”
No, it’s not. Most people on FR could do it.
“Lets try it out...name two issues for me.”
Now, see, you do think I’m an idiot. Firstly, a person can claim or deny any belief whatsoever on the Internet, which means no fair judging is possible, and secondly, lots of people have beliefs they’re not even aware of (see the works of Albert Ellis).
“Please explain.”
Firstly, it is false, as shown by your comment that “people are more similar than they are different.” All falsehoods have negative consequences. Among the negative consequences of this one are that it leads people to waste time, when it’s already hard enough to figure things out. It also provides adolescents (of all ages) an excuse to close their ears to those older and wiser on the pretext that “I’m unique and you don’t understand me.” I could go on, but I’m starting to tire. I hope that will be enough.
“Yes, they were direct quotes.”
You didn’t offer any direct quotes that showed any such thing.
“I’m sorry but Im afraid that it is absolutely true.”
You can offer no statement of mine that shows circular reasoning.
“I feel I could say absolutely the same myself.”
But you’d be wrong.
“I see. Well, I was unaware that I was advancing a ploy either.”
Now that I believe. One of my intentions was to make you aware that you do.
“Obviously everyone cares whether they are telling the truth”
That’s not really the case. If you associate with leftists who think you are one of them, you will hear them say things like, “If it isn’t true, it ought to be.” They are quite happy to deal in falsehood, if they think it will help them reach their objectives.
“Similarly, no one wants to think they are “playing into Satan’s hands.”
Of course they don’t. So?
“Why therefore do you feel the need to add this sentence to your argument?”
Because it is the simple truth, and because we are far too oblivious in this day and age to the nequitiam et insidias diaboli.
“I can only think it is because it serves to add authority to your statement”
If you can only think that, it is because your thinking is restricted by an assumption of moral turpitude and closed-mindedness on my part, as it has been since the very beginning of this exchange.
If anything, I would expect a serious reference to Satan to undermine my credibility with 21st century westerners. That is always in my mind when I make such a reference, and it is always a deliberate act of will to force myself to accept that risk.
In other words, the truth is the exact opposite of what your assumptions lead you to think.
“because the obvious implication is that someone who doesn’t agree with your argument is therefore “playing into Satan’s hands.”
The mind-set that makes that implication seem obvious intersects with reality at no point. One required assumption is that I judge truth solely on one criterion, and that is whether it accords with what I think. This accusation is as common (from the left) as it is false and insulting. It is to say that, “While I make genuine and meaningful attempts to find the truth, always conscious that my opinion could be mistaken, you are a closed-minded bigot who makes no such efforts and is not capable of facing the prospect that he could be mistaken about anything.”
Now, if that’s what you think of me, then bandying words with me has to be a waste of time. Or, it could be that you were just brought up that way, and you haven’t really thought through the implications of that particular ploy. I’m sure that your college professors and bull-session mates used it as unconsciously as a fish breathes in water, but conservatives are conscious of it.
“Of course you are right, but the actual effect of either accusation is the same.”
In no way. There are parsecs of difference between “You are a morally deficient scumbag,” and “The argument you have just advanced is invalid because of a, b, and c.” (It occurs to me in passing that if a leftist seeking material to criticize FR were to come across that passage, he would extract the words, “You are a morally deficient scumbag,” present it as if I were saying that to you, know he was lying, and be perfectly content.)
“True, although I would argue (as indeed you have) that the one is often a reflection of the other.”
And just as often, it just means that a person hasn’t yet thought something through. On my own struggle “Up from Liberalism,” and in others engaged in that same struggle, I observe that a person can’t do everything at once. Like peeling the layers of an onion, the falsehoods and unreason of the left must be shrugged off little by little. If you look on FR, you see people at all stages, and every now and again someone reminds you that you’re not done yet, either.
“I’m not trying to make a moral equivalence on that level and I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was.”
I appreciate your apology, though I wouldn’t have demanded it. I would just say that many of your comments rest on that moral equivalence, whether you are aware of it or not.
“I’m more concerned with the actual effect of either type of comment, which is to generate more heat than light.”
I believe that God designed the physical world to give us clues as to the nature of the spiritual world. In the physical world, heat generates light.
“I am devestated that you think I “habitually impute negative qualities”
See above.
“That would mean you would need a definitive definition of what constitutes “religion”.
Only if you start with the assumptions of the left. Otherwise, you can just say, “For the Founding Fathers, freedom of religion applied to Christianity, with tolerance for Judaism, and there’s an end to it. Selah.”
“thats not an argument thats going to work for someone who is not a Christian.”
We’re already fighting the mooselimbs. Victory depends on how well we fight, not how well we argue.
“I don’t think I was, which leads me back to speculating that you have heard this kind of thing so many times, that you automatically assume any “nay-saying” as meaning I am doing the same. Actually I wasnt. Its a logical inference “IF you believe Islam, Atheism, and Wicca are death cults and not true religion, THEN you probably also believe they should be proscribed.”
Believing that a religion you think false should—for that reason alone—be proscribed is intolerant in the extreme. You know, bigoted. The logical inference is this: If you think I believe that religions I think false should—for that reason alone—be proscribed, then you think that I am a bigot.
By the same token, believing that adherents to Christianity would like to see other reasons proscribed—solely because they differ from Christianity—is bigoted. America today is steeped in this particular bigotry. It permeates academia, the “news” and entertainment media, public discussion, and even the courts and pulpits. It is an article of faith on the left, and has come to be so automatically accepted that people don’t even give it a critical look any more.
“That seems like a logical conclusion to me.”
For the reasons I discuss in the paragraphs directly above.
“the logical inference is that someone who believes Islam, wicca et al are tools of evil is likely also to believe there should be restraints placed upon them by the body politic.”
Not for anyone who understands America and its founding principles. (And for those of you south and north of our borders who think we should call ourselves Los Estados Unidos, KMEFWA and STFU, you third-world wannabes. There has only been one America in all of human history. Quit your whining and earn some respect by emulating us.)
Our Founding Fathers understood that freedom is the sine qua non of a republic that maximizes human happiness and conformity with God’s will. Certainly some constraints are unavoidable, as in laws against murder and theft, but freedom is to be advantaged wherever possible.
Therefore, the alternative of choice is to allow people to form whacko cults if they like, so long as children are not being raped or people killed, etc. However, that in no way mandates that these whacko cults are to be unfairly advantaged by according them the status of legitimate religions.
I advocate expelling the mooselimbs not because I disagree with them, but because their history over the past 1,335 years is drenched in the blood of the innocent in a way unequalled by any other force in human history. Islam has been at war with Christianity since Ramadan in the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ 672. It was created by Satan specifically to wage war on Christianity. We are unutterably foolish to allow them to remain within our borders today.
That’s true too.
“Firstly, it is false”
No it isn’t false. All Human beings are unique - that is a matter of biological fact. Even identical twins have some genetic variation, and no two people have exactly the same experiences or environment, for good or for bad.
“as shown by your comment that “people are more similar than they are different.””
No, that comment shows nothing of the kind. If I say people are more similar than they are different that doesn’t mean that they AREN’T different.
“All falsehoods have negative consequences. Among the negative consequences of this one are that it leads people to waste time, when it’s already hard enough to figure things out.”
Good job its not false then.
“It also provides adolescents (of all ages) an excuse to close their ears to those older and wiser on the pretext that “I’m unique and you don’t understand me.””
Well, people could argue that I suppose, but contrariwise, people could (and have) also argued that personal circumstances are of absolutely no relevance, which is also untrue.
“I could go on, but I’m starting to tire”
Thank you for the time you have given.
Having a sense of right and wrong is deemed judgemental.
Being repulsed by deviant behavior is a “natural reaction”.
“Now, see, you do think I’m an idiot. Firstly, a person can claim or deny any belief whatsoever on the Internet, which means no fair judging is possible, and secondly, lots of people have beliefs they’re not even aware of (see the works of Albert Ellis).”
I dont think you’re an idiot. I’m genuinely interested in what you would conclude. It would help me crystallise my current situation. With regard to uncovering beliefs I’m not even aware of...good..I’d like to know what they are. As for your insinuation that I would be dishonest with regard to your conclusions in order to win a few tawdry points in an argument, well that cuts both ways. You could trawl through the internet (particularly FR) for my comments and base your conclusions on the statements there rather than on “two opinions”. Ill trust you are honorable enough not to do that, if youll trust me to respond honestly.
“The mind-set that makes that implication seem obvious intersects with reality at no point. One required assumption is that I judge truth solely on one criterion, and that is whether it accords with what I think. This accusation is as common (from the left) as it is false and insulting. It is to say that, “While I make genuine and meaningful attempts to find the truth, always conscious that my opinion could be mistaken, you are a closed-minded bigot who makes no such efforts and is not capable of facing the prospect that he could be mistaken about anything.”
It intersects completely with reality if the assertion is true. That is of course, a matter for your own conscience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.